[ RadSafe ] Repository versus disposal facility
Stroud - CDPHE, Ed
ed.stroud at state.co.us
Thu Mar 7 13:45:54 CST 2013
The simple answer is profit. That is, with uranium prices where they are,
it's simply cheaper to make new fuel instead of reprocessing. In Colorado,
there's a new uranium extraction mill in the planning stages.
Ed Stroud, Compliance Lead
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Miller, Mark L <mmiller at sandia.gov> wrote:
> .....Same problem with calling Yucca Mtn a "disposal facility" rather than
> a "repository".
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted de Castro [mailto:tdc at xrayted.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 7:50 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change
> I guess its our own fault for calling it "REPROCESSING" instead of
> "RECYCLING" - in which case instead of being prohibited - it would be
> On 3/6/2013 6:16 PM, Jerry Cohen wrote:
> > It has been over 30 years ago that president Carter established the
> > "no reprocessing" policy.
> > Can anyone explain how, over this span on time, such an obviously
> > stupid policy has not been rescinded.
> > Jerry Cohen
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe